👓 Polarised and Preposterous
Sunglasses, Steroids, and the Surreal Decline of Professional Reasoning in Modern Safeguarding
Filed Date: 29 July 2025
Reference Code: SWANK-ADD-0729-SUNGLASSES
Court File Name: 2025-07-29_Addendum_SunglassesUse_MedicalAccommodation.pdf
Summary: Westminster social workers declared sunglasses a safeguarding concern. Polly wears prescription polarised lenses due to asthma medication side effects and visual correction needs.
I. What Happened
In yet another entry for the annals of bureaucratic absurdity, Westminster Children’s Services has now identified sunglasses — yes, sunglasses — as a possible safeguarding risk. This bewildering assertion appears in internal justifications surrounding the state-sanctioned removal of my four children, following a cascade of institutional misinterpretations stemming from a misdiagnosed medical emergency.
I wear polarised, prescription sunglasses because I am on prednisone, a corticosteroid prescribed for severe eosinophilic asthma, which causes light sensitivity as a well-documented side effect. The sunglasses are not cosmetic. They are corrective, clinical, and — until now — entirely uncontroversial.
II. What the Complaint Establishes
This complaint does not merely catalogue yet another petty insult. It exposes the broader collapse of clinical literacywithin child protection frameworks. My sunglasses:
Correct farsightedness
Are polarised to mitigate light-triggered sensory strain
Are a direct response to steroid-induced photosensitivity
In other words: I can see better with them on, and feel less ill. That social workers have chosen to interpret this as concealment, manipulation, or pathology is not only farcical — it’s discriminatory.
III. Why SWANK Logged It
SWANK London Ltd. logs this episode as part of a growing evidentiary trend:
🪞Medical accommodations by disabled mothers are routinely rebranded as risk indicators.
This entry joins the master file of retaliatory safeguarding misuse, and has been formally submitted as an Addendum in Case No: ZC25C50281, refuting the suggestion that visual protection from light constitutes harm.
IV. Violations
This allegation reflects breaches of:
Equality Act 2010 – disability discrimination through failure to accommodate
Children Act 1989 – procedural distortion of risk analysis
Data Protection Act 2018 – misrepresentation in professional records
UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – stereotyping health management as danger
V. SWANK’s Position
If this is what passes for safeguarding analysis in 2025 — then we are not in a welfare state, we are in a performance of concern.
Polly Chromatic is not a risk to her children because she wears sunglasses. She is a risk to the system because she writes everything down.
⚖️ Legal Rights & Archival Footer This Dispatch Has Been Formally Archived by SWANK London Ltd. Every entry is timestamped. Every sentence is jurisdictional. Every structure is protected. This document does not contain confidential family court material. It contains the lawful submissions, filings, and lived experiences of a party to multiple legal proceedings — including civil claims, safeguarding audits, and formal complaints. All references to professionals are strictly in their public roles and relate to conduct already raised in litigation. This is not a breach of privacy. It is the preservation of truth. Protected under Article 10 of the ECHR, Section 12 of the Human Rights Act, and all applicable rights to freedom of expression, legal self-representation, and public interest disclosure. To mimic this format without licence is not homage. It is breach. We do not permit imitation. We preserve it as evidence. This is not a blog. It is a legal-aesthetic instrument. Filed with velvet contempt. Preserved for future litigation. Because evidence deserves elegance, retaliation deserves an archive, and writing is how I survive this pain. Attempts to silence or intimidate this author will be documented and filed in accordance with SWANK protocols. © 2025 SWANK London Ltd. All formatting and structural rights reserved. Use requires express permission or formal licence. Unlicensed mimicry will be cited — as panic, not authorship.